Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill directs the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to collect and report statistics on the usage of artificial intelligence in workplaces. It amends the Act of March 4, 1913 to require that BLS include AI usage alongside other labor statistics, defines AI by reference to section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020, and requires initial data collection to begin within 18 months of enactment.
Left emphasizes worker protections and training funding.
Relative to its intended legislative type (a reporting/data-collection mandate), this bill clearly identifies the problem and uses an appropriate statutory amendment to assign responsibility to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and to adopt an existing statutory definition of artificial intelligence.
This bill directs the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to collect and report statistics on the usage of artificial intelligence in workplaces.
It amends the Act of March 4, 1913 to require that BLS include AI usage alongside other labor statistics, defines AI by reference to section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020, and requires initial data collection to begin within 18 months of enactment.
Modest-to-good chance because it's a narrow, technical reporting mandate; lack of appropriation and possible objections to new data burdens temper the likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type (a reporting/data-collection mandate), this bill clearly identifies the problem and uses an appropriate statutory amendment to assign responsibility to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and to adopt an existing statutory definition of artificial intelligence. It lacks detailed mechanisms, methodological direction, fiscal provisions, and accountability/reporting requirements needed to fully operationalize a comprehensive data collection effort.
Left emphasizes worker protections and training funding.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes worker protections and training funding.
Likely positive about improved federal data on AI impacts for workers and communities.
Views data collection as a first step toward policymaking on displacement, training, and equity, while noting the bill lacks direct protections or funding for affected workers.
Generally supportive as a pragmatic, information-building measure that doesn't impose regulation.
Will seek clarity on methodology, costs, inter-agency coordination, and duplication with Census or NSF surveys.
Mixed to cautious: sees value in data but worries about federal scope expansion, survey costs, and potential regulatory uses of the data.
Prefers limited, targeted collection and protections against bureaucratic mission creep.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest-to-good chance because it's a narrow, technical reporting mandate; lack of appropriation and possible objections to new data burdens temper the likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes worker protections and training funding.
Modest-to-good chance because it's a narrow, technical reporting mandate; lack of appropriation and possible objections to new data burdens…
Relative to its intended legislative type (a reporting/data-collection mandate), this bill clearly identifies the problem and uses an appropriate statutory amendment to assign responsibility to the Bureau of Labor Stati…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.